Foot fault question (ugh)

r2473

G.O.A.T.
-Tom said that foot faulting will give a player an advantage.
-You said that unless he measures the height of the net each time he plays, he cant be concerned with a foot fault advantage.

Your counter argument is horrible because both players are assumed to play on the same court equally, whereas both players are not expected to be foot faulting. A better analogy would be a tennis match where players do not change sides and one side of the court is actually a foot longer than the other. That's basically what happens when one person foot faults and the other does not.

You can argue that one person is favored by certain style of shot selection, but that has nothing to do with the rules. It is both legal to hit flat and moonball, whereas it is not league to foot fault. It's legal to drop shot an old lady, but it's not legal to foot fault when you are serving to her.

So, if you hit an OH at the net, and hit the net on your follow through, but your opponent had no play on the ball? Is it a net? Hitting the net in that way neither hindered nor helped either player, so actually no player had any advantage. Would you not call a foul even though the net touch occurred before the ball bounced twice?
You are reminding me why, when anything happens on the tennis court, I let the other person have their way, and refuse to discuss/argue.
 

Bluefan75

Professional
You are reminding me why, when anything happens on the tennis court, I let the other person have their way, and refuse to discuss/argue.

I guess the bigger existential question is, why is it that those who come to play *by the rules* are the bad guys? Why are people either a)so willing to ignore the rules, or b)enable such behavior by what was said above? I get it on one level, but ...
 

NTRPolice

Hall of Fame
You are reminding me why, when anything happens on the tennis court, I let the other person have their way, and refuse to discuss/argue.

Sounds like a good "projection" of yourself there.

A foot fault is a foot fault. People call them at difference "tolerance" levels. Some cops may pull you over for going 1 mph over, and some may let you get away with 9 mph or less over the limit. Still, if you get pulled over, you cant argue the ticket simply because the last cop let you get away with 5 mph over the limit and didnt give you a ticket.

You dont like it? Dont foot fault. Then you wont need to resort to your impressive reasoning powers.
 
You're being inconsistent.
no, sarcastic
Sometimes it's being fixated on someone foot faulting by an inch.
not fixated at all, just adding my 2cents to the conversation, i didn't start this thread,
you're putting words into people's mouths that weren't there, i could say you're hallucinating but i won't--now if you don't mind i'll get back to things that really matter and are worth fixating on--free porn--this ff'ing thing has been hashed over a hundred times, it boils down to two camps, those who care and those who don't--those who care matter and those who don't care don't matter, to fracture a phrase, so to speak. I'll stick with Harry Hopman, he was a tennis champion and one of the greatest coaches, I think he knows something about the game.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
I guess the bigger existential question is, why is it that those who come to play *by the rules* are the bad guys? Why are people either a)so willing to ignore the rules, or b)enable such behavior by what was said above? I get it on one level, but ...
It comes down to what is "customary and normal". Many rules are not enforced to "to the letter". So when someone decides to enforce one rule (but not another one) to the letter, it is often met with resistance/anger.

When I play a new opponent, be it a friendly match or competitive match, I let people do what they want. I also accept any "to the letter" enforcement they want. I don't think much of this matters in rec tennis. People like to "make it matter" for reasons I alluded to above.

So let's say I'm playing @tennis tom for the first time. I'd guess very quickly he will say something like "ya know, we are playing foot faults in this match, like always". I'll understand what he means and move a few inches off the line.

Probably not too much later he'll say "does anybody know what the score is, because I didn't hear you call it". So, I'll be sure to call the score so he can hear it before every serve. And, I won't be an a-hole calling it. I'll just call it so he can hear and he's happy.

Probably at some point in the match I'll make an "out" call. He'll say "are you sure?". To which I will say "it was probably in, your point".

And on down the line. In other words, I'm not going to let his "particular concerns" affect play. I'll just simply comply with his wishes. I've found that none of this really has an effect the outcome UNLESS you let it, by becoming emotionally involved and letting it distract you from winning the tennis match.
 
Last edited:
A better analogy would be a tennis match where players do not change sides and one side of the court is actually a foot longer than the other. That's basically what happens when one person foot faults and the other does not.
Yes, NTRP has nailed it, that's what happens when you ff, you make the service box longer for yourself by 1 to 3 feet.
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
troll, considering you are nostradamus, you can see EVERYTHING! i no longer believe you are THE nostradamus, you are an impostor, if you can't see the server taking two steps into the court then you need to call lucifer for your eye-exam. If I'm playing against you I will serve from the net since you believe there is no such thing as an ff
you call it on me, I call it on you to retaliate........and foot fault war will begin............and what is fun in that ????????? NONE
 

Random Guy99

New User
troll, considering you are nostradamus, you can see EVERYTHING! i no longer believe you are THE nostradamus, you are an impostor, if you can't see the server taking two steps into the court then you need to call lucifer for your eye-exam. If I'm playing against you I will serve from the net since you believe there is no such thing as an ff
 

Random Guy99

New User
FWIW - with my sample size of one; I was not looking over the net to notice the FF. I was looking through the net. And - both feet were clearly stepping over the line; close to a shoe length worth. It was so obvious. I doubt very much I'd notice a 2" FF...but now that I'm thinking about it, I will at least check it out in the short term anyways. Of course I won't say anything. Unless it's my favorite hitting partner. Then I'll take his shoe off and swat him upside the head. But that's how he and I roll :)
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
It can make a difference and those that say it doesn't are ignoring the math and science of it.

Lets take the case of serving down the T. If you contact the ball at 9 feet off the ground at the baseline, a straight line that just clears the net will be in the service box 19.5 feet past the net, or 1.5 feet inside the service box. If you contact the ball at the same height but a foot inside the baseline, the straight line will be in the service box 19 feet past the net, or 2 feet inside the service box.

Six inches isn't a big deal right? Well, if you could increase the window you have to serve into from 1.5 feet to 2 feet, a 33% increase, I think you'll see your serve improve in one or both of first serve percentage and/or your ability to go after more on the first serve and still keep the same percentage.

Yes, I know no one hits serves that are perfectly straight, we do live in a world where gravity rules, but the 33% increase is illustrative of how much easier being a foot closer to the net makes serving. And this example ignores serving out wide and how being a foot closer increases the angle at which you can still serve at a high percentage.
If you foot fault by 12 inches (a foot!!), your window is 6 inches larger?

So assuming a 1-3 inch foot fault (which I think is normal), how much advantage does the server have? And as you say, this is the maximum theoretical advantage. I'm guessing 1 inch?
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
FWIW - with my sample size of one; I was not looking over the net to notice the FF. I was looking through the net. And - both feet were clearly stepping over the line; close to a shoe length worth. It was so obvious. I doubt very much I'd notice a 2" FF...but now that I'm thinking about it, I will at least check it out in the short term anyways. Of course I won't say anything. Unless it's my favorite hitting partner. Then I'll take his shoe off and swat him upside the head. But that's how he and I roll :)
Ah, well, that does make a difference. I was assuming this was about a 2 inch foot fault. If he's stepping in with both feet, that is over a foot. That is pretty absurd.
 

schmke

Legend
If you foot fault by 12 inches (a foot!!), your window is 6 inches larger?

So assuming a 1-3 inch foot fault (which I think is normal), how much advantage does the server have? And as you say, this is the maximum theoretical advantage. I'm guessing 1 inch?
In the same thread, I did the math for 3 inches: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/foot-faults.530803/page-3#post-9275903

But quoted here:
A 3 inch difference would be 8.3% larger area, still significant. Would you have better results if you had more area to serve into and could increase your first serve percentage 10% or more without letting up at all?

And for most people that move their feet during their serve, it isn't always the exact same amount. So to be safe, if they move their foot 3 inches on average, they really need to start 5-6 inches back to be safe and then then they are giving up about 17% of additional area.

So yes, I would say even 3 inches is still very significant and an advantage. With 10%+ more area to hit into, if that results in 1 in 10 more serves in the court, you just raised your first serve percentage significantly which makes a difference. If you serve on average 6 first serves a game and play a 6-4,4-6,1-0 match, you are hitting around 70 serves and 10% is 7 more in.

If someone foot faults just one inch, that is less than 3% more area to serve into, still not zero, but arguably affecting just a couple serves in the match.
 

pabletion

Hall of Fame
-Tom said that foot faulting will give a player an advantage.
-You said that unless he measures the height of the net each time he plays, he cant be concerned with a foot fault advantage.

Your counter argument is horrible because both players are assumed to play on the same court equally, whereas both players are not expected to be foot faulting. A better analogy would be a tennis match where players do not change sides and one side of the court is actually a foot longer than the other. That's basically what happens when one person foot faults and the other does not.

You can argue that one person is favored by certain style of shot selection, but that has nothing to do with the rules. It is both legal to hit flat and moonball, whereas it is not league to foot fault. It's legal to drop shot an old lady, but it's not legal to foot fault when you are serving to her.

So, if you hit an OH at the net, and hit the net on your follow through, but your opponent had no play on the ball--Is it a net? Hitting the net in that way neither hindered nor helped either player, so actually no player had any advantage. Would you not claim the point even though the net touch occurred before the ball bounced twice?

Good analogy. The problem is that, if theres no referee, you have to be ABSOLUTELY sure he's footfaulting. Can you spot him shifting his toes over the line? What I would do with a cronic footfaulter is make him know that he's FLAGTANTLY footfaultin (I can notice across the net) and that Im gonna call him on it if he keeps it up. I have done this only ONCE in my life and its against s guy who practically skips and drags his feet a good foot inside the court.

I have NEVER even attempted to see mi opponents footfaulting, Im sure many of them touch the line sometimes and it has never been an issue. The only way I would call them would be of it were absolutely obvious and flagrant

pmX3bwwHj

would you call a footfault on me???
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
A 3 inch difference would be 8.3% larger area, still significant. Would you have better results if you had more area to serve into and could increase your first serve percentage 10% or more without letting up at all?
How much space does 8.3% equate to? Is it 1 inch? Not even that much?

After you post the number, I want you to comment on how accurate people are with their serve calling. So for example, if a serve is in/out by 1 inch, do you think rec players see that accurately? Half inch?
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
-Tom said that foot faulting will give a player an advantage.
-You said that unless he measures the height of the net each time he plays, he cant be concerned with a foot fault advantage.

Your counter argument is horrible because both players are assumed to play on the same court equally, whereas both players are not expected to be foot faulting.
Nadal and Del Potro are playing. Let's say the net was raised 18 inches. They are playing on the same court (I guess I need to say that). Do you think either player gains an advantage by the net being raised, or is this fair to both? After all, they both have to hit over the same net.
 
. I doubt very much I'd notice a 2" FF...but now that I'm thinking about it, I will at least check it out in the short term anyways.
If someone's foot is on the line you can see that a portion of the line is obliterated. If you're playing dubs it's very easy for the receiver's partner to see ff'ing.
 
Exponentially, huh? What does that mean in this context?
It means I'm done with this thread, you're ignoring the evidence that's been given you 26 different ways, this has become a waste of time, every ff'ing thread winds up like this one. I'm gonna' watch the Tennis Channel.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
It means I'm done with this thread, you're ignoring the evidence that's been given you 26 different ways, this has become a waste of time, every ff'ing thread winds up like this one. I'm gonna' watch the Tennis Channel.
I thought we were using hard numbers. Schmke gave us some distances and some percentages above (are they right...I can't say).

You gave me "exponentially". I'm not sure I know what that means (which is why I asked).

And think about it this way Tom. If every tennis player called out the score on every serve, didn't foot fault, and just generally played by all of the rules you think are important (we'll forget about the others), what fun would tennis be for you? All that would be left is.......playing tennis. Hardly what YOU want to be doing on a tennis court, right?
 
In rec tennis, the people who frequently foot fault often do so completely flagrantly, it's often not hard to see. It's not just stepping on a bit of the line, people step on the whole line and have part of their foot is inside the line. Not that hard to see or call.
 

NTRPolice

Hall of Fame
Good analogy. The problem is that, if theres no referee, you have to be ABSOLUTELY sure he's footfaulting. Can you spot him shifting his toes over the line? What I would do with a cronic footfaulter is make him know that he's FLAGTANTLY footfaultin (I can notice across the net) and that Im gonna call him on it if he keeps it up. I have done this only ONCE in my life and its against s guy who practically skips and drags his feet a good foot inside the court.

I have NEVER even attempted to see mi opponents footfaulting, Im sure many of them touch the line sometimes and it has never been an issue. The only way I would call them would be of it were absolutely obvious and flagrant

pmX3bwwHj

would you call a footfault on me???

No, I wouldnt. I explained my personal threshold earlier.

I use the "heel rule" where a person would literally have to have their heel on the line (or more) for me to say something. It would also have to be at the playoff level, where a roaming ref would be calling FF's anyway. And it would also have to appear they are trying to get an advantage with it by not even attempting to stay behind the line.

With all of this said, I have never called anyone on a FF, nor have I even "warned" anyone for doing it. I have been called for a FF by a ref before, but never by a player. My feet dont move very much in my service motion as i'm not one of the people who drag their back foot. I do get a lot of turn, so it's possible my left foot could turn onto the line. I'm definitely not "taking a step" into the court like most of the major foot faulters do!
 

schmke

Legend
Nadal and Del Potro are playing. Let's say the net was raised 18 inches. They are playing on the same court (I guess I need to say that). Do you think either player gains an advantage by the net being raised, or is this fair to both? After all, they both have to hit over the same net.
What an idiotic argument! Hitting with more spin vs flat is a playing style. Foot faulting or not is not a playing style, it is a rules violation.
 

NTRPolice

Hall of Fame
Nadal and Del Potro are playing. Let's say the net was raised 18 inches. They are playing on the same court (I guess I need to say that). Do you think either player gains an advantage by the net being raised, or is this fair to both? After all, they both have to hit over the same net.

Maybe Nadal would have an advantage on a clay court with a high net, and Del Po would have an advantage on hard court since all of his best finishes were on hard court. Maybe Nadal because he hits higher over the net. Maybe Del Po because he's taller than Nadal. Maybe Nadal because he's generally more successful.

If one player took a banned substance and one did not, who had the advantage? The player who took the banned substance, because they cheated. We dont need to make a judgement on what advantages were gained, we just need to make a judgement on whether or not a person cheated. People use the "I didnt have an advantage" defense all the time when they take performance enhancing drugs. Another good one is the "I didnt know what I was taking, I just took it." Still, no judgement needs to be made in those cases, and anytime a judgement is passed, it's the center of a huge controversy claiming corruption/collusion or favoritism. The most hilarious case of a judgment call in the tennis world was Agassi testing positive for crystal meth and it not being deemed "performance enhancing" but rather "recreational". His defense? "My trainer put it into my soda." Crystal meth. Tennis. How can that NOT be "performance enhancing?" even in the smallest amounts? Well, the answer is simple: instead of using a "no judgement" ruling, they made a special case for him. Imagine if Nadal was 5'5" and FF'ed all the time, even in majors. Why he is never called on it comes up, and they make a special justification for him since he's so short that FF'ing only puts him on an even playing field as his 6'+ competitors? Would that make sense to you?
 

pabletion

Hall of Fame
No, I wouldnt. I explained my personal threshold earlier.

I use the "heel rule" where a person would literally have to have their heel on the line (or more) for me to say something. It would also have to be at the playoff level, where a roaming ref would be calling FF's anyway. And it would also have to appear they are trying to get an advantage with it by not even attempting to stay behind the line.

With all of this said, I have never called anyone on a FF, nor have I even "warned" anyone for doing it. I have been called for a FF by a ref before, but never by a player. My feet dont move very much in my service motion as i'm not one of the people who drag their back foot. I do get a lot of turn, so it's possible my left foot could turn onto the line. I'm definitely not "taking a step" into the court like most of the major foot faulters do!

Ok I get it. I always thought of myself as someone who NEVER footfaults, since I use platform stance. It was onlyafter watching myself that I noticed I ocassionaly tilt or rotate my left foot and touch the line, sometimes like the pic I posted, barely touching, sometimes a bit more. I got called on it once at a tournament and thought it was bogus. I have seen other friends whom I play with in pictures and some of them do touch the line as well on occasions. While playing with then, I've NEVER noticed. Im not gonna start trying to notice them now (how can youwhen youre following the ball???)

On another note, PROFESSIONALY, Ive witnessed Futures matches where players footfault, WITH a chair umpire, and THEY dont call it. When I asked, the answer I got was "I dont have a clear view, if its FLAGRANT and too evident I call it, otherwise I let it go".
 
Someone called a foot fault on me in a fun match a few months ago. This person was 0.5-1.0 lower rated than me. I simply hit 2 first serves to him every time thereafter and aced him off the court. Haven't played with him since. He's a nice guy, but would rather play with someone foot faulting and hitting zingers at me than the opposite. In my opinion the serve at the amateur level is the last thing developed and would kill to look at 5.0+ serves.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Fair enough.

Let me ask you this. If you are so concerned about the advantage someone is getting by stepping an inch or so over the line, do you meticulously measure the net height to ensure it is PRECISELY the correct height in all points. Because if you don't, then it is pretty clear that you aren't really concerned with this at all. It is really just an emotional response ("he's breaking the rules.....he's cheating me.....I'll get him").

One could argue that the comparison breaks down for 2 reasons:

- The FFer has a big serve and, whatever advantage he does get from FFing, it's more significant. A weak server would gain almost nothing from FFing.

- All other things being equal, the net height affects both players equally [won't be true if, for example, one hits flat and the other with a lot of TS].

Also, the quote from Hoppman said "one to three feet" whereas your argument was one inch; big difference.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
One could argue that the comparison breaks down for 2 reasons:

- The FFer has a big serve and, whatever advantage he does get from FFing, it's more significant. A weak server would gain almost nothing from FFing.

- All other things being equal, the net height affects both players equally [won't be true if, for example, one hits flat and the other with a lot of TS].

Also, the quote from Hoppman said "one to three feet" whereas your argument was one inch; big difference.
Interesting. So it's not if a rule is violated or not, it's the harm done / advantage gained?

So if this is our guide to rule enforcement, who decides the harm done? Or does that need to be negotiated on a case by case basis? This could get tricky.
 

schmke

Legend
They are both rules violations (net height and foot fault).
And one is being perpetrated by one player (foot fault) while the other is done by the officials or courts folks setting up the net. Two entirely different things.

And if Delpo thinks the net is high, he can get it measured and corrected. Just like if someone is foot-faulting obviously, their opponent can warn and then call it.

So your argument is still idiotic and doesn't even make the point you were trying to make.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Interesting. So it's not if a rule is violated or not, it's the harm done / advantage gained?

So if this is our guide to rule enforcement, who decides the harm done? Or does that need to be negotiated on a case by case basis? This could get tricky.

All rule violations are still rule violations. It's been pointed out that some violations are almost always called [ie opponent running into the net] and some are almost never called [ie FFs, time violations, opponent showing up way late, etc].

I've never called either: any opponent [or me] who ran into the net doesn't even bother acknowledging it: we both know it was a violation and the point is awarded. LIkewise, I have never called a FF, either because I wasn't paying attention because I was concentrating on my RoS, or because, even if I noticed it, it was not a big deal.

Does this mean I'm inconsistent in my enforcement of the rules? Definitely. That's probably the way most people roll. If someone wanted to pull out the rule book, I can't argue. But he'd better be consistent in his observation of said rules.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
And one is being perpetrated by one player (foot fault) while the other is done by the officials or courts folks setting up the net. Two entirely different things.

And if Delpo thinks the net is high, he can get it measured and corrected. Just like if someone is foot-faulting obviously, their opponent can warn and then call it.

So your argument is still idiotic and doesn't even make the point you were trying to make.
You are taking the delpo/nadal too literally. I just used them as examples of different playing styles.

Ok, I'll be more straightforward. The beginning of this line of argument started with tom saying the big problem with a ff'er is that they gain an advantage in angle and space to hit into by being closer to the net. This is 100% true.

But, what if the net were lower than it should be? Wouldn't that give the same advantage? Seems to me it would. So I asked why he is so adamant about someone ff'ing by even a tiny bit, but doesn't care to see if there is an advantage gained because of a lower than legal net.

The argument the went to saying that this is Ok because it is the same for both. So from this I deduced that we aren't concerned with enforcement of the rules per se, but rather only concerned with enforcement to the point that the playing field is equal (I won't say fair).

So then I wondered, well, what if the lower net favored one player over another. Let's say one guy is a huge server, so playing with a net a few inches lower than regulation gives him a huge advantage compared to his opponent with a weaker serve that can't take advantage of this rule deviation.

The consensus seems to be that this is fine because they are hitting over the same net, so nobody is given an unfair advantage. Seems like an odd argument to me, but if it makes sense to you, OK.

I'm also perplexed with an inconsistent enforcement of tennis rules. Seems we want to enforce ff'ing to the letter of the law. If my shoelaces touch the line, that is a black and white violation and is a fault (which is 100% true). But we aren't going to worry about net height (also pretty black and white) because if it isn't right, that's fine. It's the same for both (never mind that both players are being allowed to foot fault in all of the previous examples in this thread, so in that respect, the playing field is also even).

And further, suggesting a parallel between stepping into the court (ff'ing) to gain an advantage with respect to angle and space to hit into and just having a lower net to gain the same advantage is "idiotic"?

Do I have it right?
 
Last edited:

r2473

G.O.A.T.
All rule violations are still rule violations. It's been pointed out that some violations are almost always called [ie opponent running into the net] and some are almost never called [ie FFs, time violations, opponent showing up way late, etc].

I've never called either: any opponent [or me] who ran into the net doesn't even bother acknowledging it: we both know it was a violation and the point is awarded. LIkewise, I have never called a FF, either because I wasn't paying attention because I was concentrating on my RoS, or because, even if I noticed it, it was not a big deal.

Does this mean I'm inconsistent in my enforcement of the rules? Definitely. That's probably the way most people roll. If someone wanted to pull out the rule book, I can't argue. But he'd better be consistent in his observation of said rules.
We agree. This is how most people play. I call it the "ordinary and expected" enforcement of rules, not the "letter of the law" enforcement.
 

schmke

Legend
Ok, I'll be more straightforward. The beginning of this line of argument started with tom saying the big problem with a ff'er is that they gain an advantage in angle and space to hit into by being closer to the net. This is 100% true.

But, what if the net were lower than it should be? Wouldn't that give the same advantage? Seems to me it would. So I asked why he is so adamant about someone ff'ing by even a tiny bit, but doesn't care to see if there is an advantage gained because of a lower than legal net.

The argument the went to saying that this is Ok because it is the same for both. So from this I deduced that we aren't concerned with enforcement of the rules per se, but rather only concerned with enforcement to the point that the playing field is equal (I won't say fair).

So then I wondered, well, what if the lower net favored one player over another. Let's say one guy is a huge server, so playing with a net a few inches lower than regulation gives him a huge advantage compared to his opponent with a weaker serve that can't take advantage of this rule deviation.

The consensus seems to be that this is fine because they are hitting over the same net, so nobody is given an unfair advantage. Seems like an odd argument to me, but if it makes sense to you, OK.
I would never argue an incorrect net height should be ignored. But yes, I'm in the camp that says this is a less egregious rules violation as neither player is gaining an advantage not available to the other. With the foot-fault, short of the other player choosing to foot-fault to get the same advantage to even the playing field, they are disadvantaged. But absolutely, if a player believes the net is high or low, measure it and get it corrected.

I'm also perplexed with an inconsistent enforcement of tennis rules. Seems we want to enforce ff'ing to the letter of the law. If my shoelaces touch the line, that is a black and white violation and is a fault (which is 100% true). But we aren't going to worry about net height (also pretty black and white) because if it isn't right, that's fine. It's the same for both (never mind that both players are being allowed to foot fault in all of the previous examples in this thread, so in that respect, the playing field is also even).
I have not advocated enforcing foot-faults to the letter of the law in this or other threads, but I have no problem with players that choose to warn and then call obvious foot-faults. It is a rule that servers should abide by and foot-faulting does offer an advantage as I pointed out, so sure, it should be enforced per the rules.

But I also have no problem with any other rule being enforced, be it net height or time on change-overs, etc. So I agree with you that enforcement should be consistent. That said, I do consider some rules breaking to not be that significant and I personally am not going to call someone for taking a few extra seconds between points or on a change-over, nor am I going to measure the net unless it looks obviously too high or too low. And I'm not going to call foot-faults unless they are very egregious and repeated (I've never done it) as I don't want to be "that guy". But if someone wants to enforce any of these rules when playing against me, I will not complain and just roll with it.

And further, suggesting a parallel between stepping into the court (ff'ing) to gain an advantage with respect to angle and space to hit into and just having a lower net to gain the same advantage is "idiotic"?

Do I have it right?
Your more detailed explanation does make more sense so I'll retract my idiotic statement, apologies for that, but I still contend they are different because one player is perpetrating the rules violation (foot-fault) which forces the other player to also do the same rules breaking to make things even, while a net height being too low is equally available to both players to take advantage of.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
The funny thing about this thread to me is, I'm a really big server that ff's about 2 inches on every serve. For about 5 years straight I played a match every Sunday against another huge server (who is also a serve & volley player) who also ff's about the same amount on his serves. Neither of us cared about a 2 inch ff, but both of us carry a measuring tape and a net strap in our tennis bags. And we measure and adjust the net height every time we play (and it is off nearly 100% of the time).

We agreed that it is really important and are amazed most people don't even think about it. Because I can assure you, net height affects play much more than a tiny ff.
 
On another note, PROFESSIONALY, Ive witnessed Futures matches where players footfault, WITH a chair umpire, and THEY dont call it. When I asked, the answer I got was "I dont have a clear view, if its FLAGRANT and too evident I call it, otherwise I let it go".
You need linesmen too to call it accurately.
 
The funny thing about this thread to me is, I'm a really big server that ff's about 2 inches on every serve.
As long as you play with other people who don't care, then who cares? If you ever play tournament tennis you'll be forced to start caring. When you go shopping do you deduct 2cents from each dollar you're supposed to pay the cashier and tell them it's no big deal, what's your problem. Or if you went to the bank and took out money and they deducted 2 cents from each dollar you wanted you would say, close enough, thank you.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
As long as you play with other people who don't care, then who cares? If you ever play tournament tennis you'll be forced to start caring.
I do. I've been called several times. But, never more than once in a match (and once the roving umpire calls one on you, they watch you like a hawk).

I just move back ~6 inches. Doesn't bother me. The only reason I don't move back all the time is just habit. I really never think about it.
 
YES! No linesman, no FF calling. Why would anyone at the rec level call on FF?????
The word you are leaving out is "FLAGRANT!" The chair will call flagrant ones, but can't call them if he is un-sighted. The roving umps at tournaments don't call every ff because they can't be observing all the courts at the same time.
 
I do. I've been called several times. But, never more than once in a match (and once the roving umpire calls one on you, they watch you like a hawk).

I just move back ~6 inches. Doesn't bother me. The only reason I don't move back all the time is just habit. I really never think about it.
I really don't understand why you seem so proud of being slovenly in your habits. I don't think your are making Aristotle proud of you. This thread is really becoming stupid. You just want to have the last word, this has nothing to do with ff'ing.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
I really don't understand why you seem so proud of being slovenly in your habits. I don't think your are making Aristotle proud of you. This thread is really becoming stupid. You just want to have the last word, this has nothing to do with ff'ing.
I've just never seen anyone get a big advantage from ff'ing. Good servers might ff a bit, but it's hard to be a good server and ff a ton. I guess the OP plays against a guy like that, but I've never seen it.

Big ff'ers are always bad servers, so I don't care what they do. It doesn't help them.
 

Bluefan75

Professional
I've just never seen anyone get a big advantage from ff'ing. Good servers might ff a bit, but it's hard to be a good server and ff a ton. I guess the OP plays against a guy like that, but I've never seen it.

Big ff'ers are always bad servers, so I don't care what they do. It doesn't help them.

How about the fact of people just getting their serves in? You always seem to play at a decent level where people have some game. Drop it a level, where people might have a "low end of effective" spectrum serve, that if it goes in, might give trouble, but if they don't get it in, they're serving up pancakes for second serve. The people you play are probably decent servers to being with, and they can still get it in doing it properly. There are many, many, people whom that step into the court is the different between in and out, and between pancake and putting the receiver at something of a disadvantage.

As you say, you just move back 6". *Which is what everyone should do if they can't avoid footfaulting.* Yet it seems that that is never a consideration.

I play in a work league, and the divisions are set up based on skill mostly, but if you don't play enough matches, you will drop down. So some guys who aren't really that level stay up because they play a lot. Which is fine, the committee makes it clear the rules are slanted that way. Because of court time restrictions, we play one set to 10 games(sorry Nacho). I played one guy and "lost" 10-8. At least that is what we put in, because I wasn't going to start a fuss at this point in the season. But the guy footfaulted *every single serve*. So did I really lose? As I said, there a number of reasons I didn't care how it got recorded(whereas another point in the season I may have), but did he win 10-8? It was 10-8 for the footfaulter?
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Not really true. I've seen a few good servers that ff a lot.
The reason I say this is because, to have a good serve, you need to coordinate a fairly complex chain of moving parts in a pretty precise manner. So if you are moving a lot (footfaulting 6, 9, 12+ inches), chances are, you won't be able to do it.

It's like a good golfer. They crush the ball but stay in perfect balance. When balance is lost, something has broken down in the swing. And it is very, very hard to stay in balance when you are moving a lot (big foot fault) during the motion.

I do something like Ferrer. I take a small step at the start. He starts with his front foot parallel to the baseline, so he doesn't ff. My front foot is facing the net post, so I step at that angle, and end up putting my toe on the line.

 
Top